Summary#
Montréal City Council awarded a two-year contract to Centre Investigation & Sécurité Canada inc. for gate-clerk services at snow-disposal sites. The contract covers eight sites and includes two options to extend for one winter season each.
- The clerks will control trucks authorized to dump snow at 13 gatehouses.
- The sites are 46e avenue and Saint-Pierre Lachine in Lachine; Angrignon in LaSalle; Carrière Saint-Michel in Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension; Château-Pierrefonds in Pierrefonds-Roxboro; Sartelon and Thimens in Saint-Laurent; and Iberville in Plateau-Mont-Royal.
- The City awarded the contract through a public call for tenders that received seven bids. The two lowest compliant bids had the same price; a draw selected the contractor.
- The City also ordered an evaluation of the contractor’s performance.
What it means for you#
- Residents: The decision funds gate-clerk services at the named snow-disposal sites. City staff say these controls support safe, orderly snow-disposal operations; the decision does not guarantee a particular service result.
- City administration: The city-centre must pay for the contract from the operating budget of the Service de la concertation des arrondissements et de l’expérience citoyenne.
- Contractor: Centre Investigation & Sécurité Canada inc. will provide services during winter seasons. The contract runs until April 15, 2028; the City may choose to exercise either or both one-season extensions.
Money#
The authorized maximum is $605,576.19, taxes included, for the initial contract and its allowances.
- This includes $448,574.96 for the bid, $89,714.99 for contingencies and $67,286.24 for changes in quantities.
- City staff say the total includes a 35% increase over the bid amount to cover uncertain winter conditions. They warn that especially severe winters could require additional credits, which would need separate authorization.
- The two extension options are estimated at $448,574.96 in total, taxes included, before price adjustments, quantity changes or contingencies. That estimate is separate from the current authorized maximum.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not say how the City will decide whether to use the extension options or what price adjustments would apply.
- It does not set out how the contractor’s performance will be evaluated.
- The amount of any extra funding needed in severe winters is unknown.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the award is that seven bids were received and the selected bid was compliant.
- City staff say the bid was 15.9% below their estimate, and that the identical price from the two lowest compliant bidders suggests the price reflects current market conditions.
- City staff say that not awarding a contract risked slowing snow-loading operations and affecting service to residents.
Case against#
- One concern is that the authorized maximum is higher than the bid price because of contingencies and possible changes in quantities; severe winters could require further funding.
- The extension options could add costs, and their final price is not stated.
- The City selected the contractor by drawing lots after a tied bid, not because its bid was lower than the other lowest compliant bid.